White Reference is designed for the dissemination of news of interest to the White Nationalist community as well as others interested in such information. This includes reports of crime and oppression against White people worldwide, as well as accounts of White resistance. Display optimized for Firefox and Chrome.

Pages

Sunday, November 04, 2007

One of the more controversial entities in Canada is the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT). The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal is a quasi-judicial body, similar in concept to a court. It was created by the Canadian Parliament to inquire into complaints of discrimination and to decide if what is alleged to have occurred is a discriminatory practice under both the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Employment Equity Act. Pictured above left, Canadian free speech activist Paul Fromm, a frequent target of the CHRT.

As an administrative tribunal, the CHRT has more flexibility than regular courts. This allows those who appear before it a chance to tell their cases more fully without having to follow strict rules of evidence. The Tribunal's main goal is to ensure that both the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Employment Equity Act are interpreted and applied fairly and impartially at all hearings. The Tribunal is not an advocate for human rights issues: That is the role of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The stated mission of the CHRT, according to their website, is to provide Canadians with an improved quality of life and an assurance of equal access to the opportunities that exist in our society through the fair-minded and equitable interpretation and enforcement of the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Employment Equity Act.

Of course, "fair-minded" and "equitable" are a matter of interpretation. In fact, the activities of the CHRT have been anything BUT fair-minded and equitable. Canadian citizens who have expressed concern over Canada's liberal immigration policy and the formal enshrinement of "diversity" and "multiculturalism" as official instruments of internal state policy have found themselves disproportionately on the receiving end of sanctions from the CHRT. In addition, the CHRA and the CHRT have a gaping loophole which has allowed a full-time professional complainer, Richard Warman, to monopolize and manipulate the process, using the CHRT not to redress legitimate complaints, but to politically and economically disenfranchise Warman's political opponents.

Longtime Canadian patriot and activist Paul Fromm is the most notable of the CHRT's victims. He has tracked the cases heard by the CHRT, and provides a statistical sketch of their results on the Freedom-Site, operated by the Canadian Freedom Resource Center:

Are we to seriously believe that working class whites are virtually the only Canadian citizens to have committed offenses under the Canadian Human Rights Act? If not, then why are virtually only working class whites targeted? The fact that Richard Warman has been the complainant 48% of the time must also be viewed with suspicion. How could one person be so personally offended so often as to have initiated 48% of the complaints? Warman's agenda is obvious - he views people like Paul Fromm and others who share his vision of free speech as political enemies, and he's using the loophole provided in the CHRA and by the CHRT to get political revenge. However, that political revenge has economic consequences.

And just what is this infamous "Section 13", anyway? Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is designed to prevent the public communication of hate. This section has been the source of constant dispute, since the very definition of "hate" itself has been disputed. Here's the text of Section 13 itself:

13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.Interpretation

(2) For greater certainty, subsection (1) applies in respect of a matter that is communicated by means of a computer or a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet, or any similar means of communication, but does not apply in respect of a matter that is communicated in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a broadcasting undertaking.Interpretation

(3) For the purposes of this section, no owner or operator of a telecommunication undertaking communicates or causes to be communicated any matter described in subsection (1) by reason only that the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking owned or operated by that person are used by other persons for the transmission of that matter.

R.S., 1985, c. H-6, s. 13; 2001, c. 41, s. 88.

It's clear that Canada has a narrower definition of free speech than we do in the U.S.A. It reflects Canada's separate evolution from the United States. While we Americans took our liberty by force, Canadians got their liberty peacefully through the Act of Confederation in 1867. So while we Americans still tend to value liberty over security, Canadians, on the other hand, tend to value security over liberty. I respect their choice.

What I don't respect is selective persecution. And white Canadians are clearly being selectively persecuted under the CHRA. Paul Fromm and a number of patriots contest this issue, and I support their efforts while at the same time fully respecting Canadians' rights to manage their own internal affairs.

Followers

Alexa

About Me

It's time for Americans to take America back! America has been in the hands of special interests too long. Sometimes it's necessary to set aside the labels; while I prefer the conservative solution, sometimes you gotta go to the left. Sometimes capitalism requires an occasional daub of socialism to smooth its sharper edges.